교통사고처리특례법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds of appeal, the victim may recognize the fact that the victim died of the marry colored from the heart flady of the bridge while being treated with injuries, such as the mouth flad on the right upper part due to the instant traffic accident. However, the court below which denied the relation between the traffic accident in this case and the death of the victim, erred by misapprehending the legal principles, or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. The lower court, in its detailed statement of the grounds for the determination, could have predicted the Defendant that the victim’s mental and medical clothes and pregnancy could have caused the occurrence of the fluoral chosis, and that the victim, who was the 27-year-old female female under ordinary 27 years of age, was dead by her blood while receiving physical treatment at least 40 days after her fluoral fluoral.
It is difficult to see otherwise, and there is no evidence to prove that there was a substantial causal relationship between the instant traffic accident and the death of the victim.
Ultimately, the lower court determined that Defendant cannot be punished for a violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents caused by Occupational and Occupational Death, and that Defendant’s automobile is dismissed on the ground that Defendant’s automobile is subscribed to the Korea Trucking Insurance Cooperative, with respect to the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents caused by Occupational and Occupational Injury.
Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the trial court in light of the records, the Defendant is recognized as having sustained injury by causing the instant traffic accident due to occupational negligence, but it is difficult to view that it was proven without reasonable doubt that the result of the victim’s death was caused due to the instant traffic accident.
Therefore, the court below's decision to dismiss the public prosecution is just and it is pointed out by the prosecutor.